Dear Sir, I so wish I could better answer your questions. Religiously speaking I am somewhere between an infant and toddler at best. I'm happy to share my limited insight and perception though. Keeping in mind it is without authority, nor qualifications to do so, ok?

First let me clarify that Protestants in my perception do not consider themselves as 'one Church' divided over disagreements of theology, though in many cases that is how division happened. As it stands now I would say each denomination is more of a separate 'Church' kind of like Orthodox and the RCC are separate. Consider this: Theologically speaking in some ways I would consider the Church I currently pray at more in line with Orthodoxy than 'modern' Methodist for example, and far closer than Calvinist or Evangelical Protestants. It is simply not possible to give an all inclusive answer to your very legitimate questions.

With all that being said, some reject more Oral Tradition than others. My perception as I have been learning is that the only Oral Traditions that should be completely rejected are that which cannot be confirmed through scripture, yes realizing scripture originally comes from The Church. Ex: Am I correct that the Immaculate Conception, and purgatory, has no Scriptural basis nor was it Oral Tradition prior to The Holy Bible being written? If so, that is why it is rejected. Notice how I start off with the clear cut easy ones I believe we would agree with. It is prudent for me to remember Martin Luther was not as much objecting to Orthodoxy but the RCC. I may be showing my ignorance as Martin Luther may have had objections to Orthodoxy as well that I am not aware of yet.

As for The Cannons and Tradition that did exist prior to written Scripture that may be rejected by some, many, or all, or how the Church is trusted for Scripture but not necessarily everything else? My knowledge is simply too weak to answer confidently. I feel comfortable enough to say that in some cases though it is not a matter of rejecting Tradition, but simply not seeing some aspects as necessary to salvation or finding God, thus accepted but not practiced. I almost think to some extent that one reason The Church is subordinate to Scripture, though that Scripture comes from the Church, (quite the paradox I’m working with no?) has to do with what I earlier mentioned as an understandable knee jerk reaction. Could this have resulted in Protestants striping down Christianity to a core, rejecting everything that is not substantiated by Scripture, (yes, even though Scripture comes from the Church itself), and only applying what is deemed as necessary to faith and salvation in an attempt to protect oneself from the contamination of man? Until my knowledge reaches a point to learn otherwise I think that is a fair possibility. One of the first prayers I heard in an Orthodox sermon (on line) that I still repeat often goes; 'Lord God let me see You more clearly, past the misconceptions of man, but for who You truly are.' Clearly that prayer and sermon was written for us Protestants!

Are we foolish to believe in Saints but not see it as necessary to pray to them? If Icons are a reminder of those that paved the way before us (oversimplification I realize) is it dangerous to think that The Cross in our Church or the one I keep in my pocket is sufficient to do the same? To be honest and fair we should ask ourselves how much ‘fullness’ is being missed though. Not long ago it would have been easy to excuse crossing ones self as an unnecessary physical act. Now that I have learned just a little of Christian Ontology, the connection between our mind, body, and soul, and only now learning of the ‘mysticism’ of the desert Fathers it might not be ‘necessary’ but I would hardly consider it merely a ritualistic physical action either.

Now that I have taken so much of your time without really answering any of your (our) questions allow me to make a personal ‘southern’ note of interest. My daughter recently moved to western N.C. I was truly amazed to see three Orthodox Churches in her immediate area. There are a couple Methodist, Presbyterian, a Nazarene I think, and more Baptist Crosses on the Google map than I could count. She has not visited the Orthodox nor could we find an ‘old school’ Wesleyan, but praise God she did find one she is comfortable at and has been attending.

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

I really cant blame the reformers really. They were not trying to be nefarious or anything. i think the reason why they did not look East is because of revisionist history.

Rome has tried to rewrite history for a long time. The way they taught it everyone left them (they still teach that).

My priest and I got into this talk on Sunday and he said that its unfortunate that the reformers did not look East, but it was to be expected.

That last sentence is itself a historical revision.

For example, this is from the Second Answer of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople to Tubingen, 1579,

Quote

O most wise German men and beloved children of our humble self, since, as sensible men, you wish with your whole heart to enter our most Holy Church, we, as affectionate fathers, willingly accept your love and friendliness, if you will follow the Apostolic and Synodal decrees in harmony with us and will submit to them. For then you will indeed be in communion with us, and having openly submitted to our holy and catholic church of Christ, you will be praised by all prudent men. ln this way the two churches will become one by the grace of God, we shall live together hereafter and we will exist together in a God-pleasing way until we attain the heavenly kingdom. May all of us attain it in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs glory unto the ages. Amen.

Written with the help of God, in Constantinople, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 1576, 15 May, at the venerable Patriarchal Monastery of the Pammakaristos [All-Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary].

Jeremiah, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch

Without getting into a big discussion of what came (or didn't come) from this, I believe the long and short of it is that they did not "follow the Apostolic and Synodal decrees in harmony with us and will submit to them" as the patriarch had asked.

But doesn't the whole Protestant argument about "sola scriptura" collapse when confronted with the fact that the Canon of Scripture was "closed" (more or less) around AD 397 (or thereabouts) and that that Canon was established by what is now (and was then, too) known as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (i.e. what are *now* the Catholic and Orthodox Churches)?

The typical Protestant explanation is that earlier generations of Christians didn't "set" the canon of scripture, but simply managed to "recognize" what was inspired regardless of whether or not those Christians interpreted that scripture correctly or were being obedient to it, at least for the NT.

That's because that's what's true! Even the most liberal timeframes for NT authorship have everything being written by the early 200s; I believe a typical conservative dating knocks a century off that. Canon formation is not authorship; it's simply authorization, as it were.

What do you call a Protestant who learns Church History? An Orthodox Catechumen.

It remains the case that people who let their historical study drive their ecclesiology end up in a variety of places. John Cardinal Newman, for instance: the name speaks for itself. Maintaining the more extreme restorationist positions is difficult in the face of sufficient historical knowledge, but you know, most Protestant seminaries have history departments, and I suspect that those in the mainline denominations have a much wider scope than those in Orthodox seminaries, because they have to. Your church history is our church history too, after all.

More recently, owing I think to more and better study by Protestant scholars, I've heard that the church started to fall apart sooner. I would say this is because more Protestants are actually starting to read some of the early Fathers and finding out that early Christianity doesn't fit their preconceived notions so it must have been corrupted earlier on.

Interestingly, there are Evangelical theologians who have studied the Fathers in order to see if the Bauer/Ehrman theory is correct. Two of them have debunked Bauer/Ehrman in The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity by Andreas J. Kostenberger (Director of Ph.D. Studies and Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Michael J. Kruger (Professor of New Testament and academic dean at Reformed Theological Seminary). The Amazon blurb on this seminal book is:

"Beginning with Walter Bauer in 1934, the denial of clear orthodoxy in early Christianity has shaped and largely defined modern New Testament criticism, recently given new life through the work of spokesmen like Bart Ehrman. Spreading from academia into mainstream media, the suggestion that diversity of doctrine in the early church led to many competing orthodoxies is indicative of today's postmodern relativism. Authors Köstenberger and Kruger engage Ehrman and others in this polemic against a dogged adherence to popular ideals of diversity.

Köstenberger and Kruger's accessible and careful scholarship not only counters the "Bauer Thesis" using its own terms, but also engages overlooked evidence from the New Testament. Their conclusions are drawn from analysis of the evidence of unity in the New Testament, the formation and closing of the canon, and the methodology and integrity of the recording and distribution of religious texts within the early church."

I will just add that the authors cited and agreed with Father John Behr (Dean of St Vladimir's Seminary) in a pivotal section of the book: essentially they concur that in all essential areas the Church was orthodox from the beginning to now. Also, I understand that one of the Baptist Seminaries has sent two of their graduates to St. Vladimir's for second Master of Divinity degrees.

The typical Protestant explanation is that earlier generations of Christians didn't "set" the canon of scripture, but simply managed to "recognize" what was inspired regardless of whether or not those Christians interpreted that scripture correctly or were being obedient to it, at least for the NT.

That's because that's what's true! Even the most liberal timeframes for NT authorship have everything being written by the early 200s; I believe a typical conservative dating knocks a century off that. Canon formation is not authorship; it's simply authorization, as it were.

Sorry, but I don't see the relation between what you said and what Melodist said.

Here is what I took from his outstanding presentation (in no particular order):

- Nobody had a complete book of the Holy Scriptures until after the invention of the printing press. The only places that held a more or less complete collection were the great libraries of the day.

- Holy Scriptures for the first millenium and a half were lectionary in nature and not the book that is familiar to us now. Basically, Christians heard the appointed Gospel and Epistles selections, as well as selections from the Old Testament (Septuagint from the start in the East). One only needs to know the Vespers and Matins selections to realize that very few books of the Old Testament were actually used, therefore known by the multitude of Christians until the 16th Century and later.

- There is no canon of the Holy Bible in the Orthodox Church, at least none in the form of a recorded act any of the Seven Ecumernical Councils (plus, the Council in Trullo), not withstanding the Council of Carthage, the list of St Athanasius, etc...

This means that even greater weight must be given to Holy Tradition, not less.

- There is no canon of the Holy Bible in the Orthodox Church, at least none in the form of a recorded act any of the Seven Ecumernical Councils (plus, the Council in Trullo), not withstanding the Council of Carthage, the list of St Athanasius, etc...

For example, this is from the Second Answer of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople to Tubingen, 1579,

Quote

O most wise German men and beloved children of our humble self, since, as sensible men, you wish with your whole heart to enter our most Holy Church, we, as affectionate fathers, willingly accept your love and friendliness, if you will follow the Apostolic and Synodal decrees in harmony with us and will submit to them. For then you will indeed be in communion with us, and having openly submitted to our holy and catholic church of Christ, you will be praised by all prudent men. ln this way the two churches will become one by the grace of God, we shall live together hereafter and we will exist together in a God-pleasing way until we attain the heavenly kingdom. May all of us attain it in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs glory unto the ages. Amen.

Written with the help of God, in Constantinople, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 1576, 15 May, at the venerable Patriarchal Monastery of the Pammakaristos [All-Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary].

Jeremiah, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch

Without getting into a big discussion of what came (or didn't come) from this, I believe the long and short of it is that they did not "follow the Apostolic and Synodal decrees in harmony with us and will submit to them" as the patriarch had asked.

- There is no canon of the Holy Bible in the Orthodox Church, at least none in the form of a recorded act any of the Seven Ecumernical Councils (plus, the Council in Trullo), not withstanding the Council of Carthage, the list of St Athanasius, etc...

But there's canon of the New Testament, right?

I believe Father Behr said that the Council of Trent formalized the Roman Catholic canon in response to the Reformation. He did not go into detail, but I just looked it up on Wikipedia (therefore cannot vouch for its truthfulness) that "a decree was passed (fourth session) confirming that the deuterocanonical books were on a par with the other books of the canon (against Luther's placement of these books in the Apocrypha of his edition) and coordinating church tradition with the Scriptures as a rule of faith. The Vulgate translation was affirmed to be authoritative for the text of Scripture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#Canons_and_decrees

Regarding an Orthodox "canon," I would point you to the post above from Nigula Qian Zishi who has links to his own detailed study on his own wonderful site. I think the following quote of his would support the claim that we do not have a canon of the Holy Bible in the strict definition of the word, and, at the same time prove that the Orthodox praxis has been to use the same Bible that is now found in the Orthodox Study Bible:

"In all, there are six lists that collectively define what the Orthodox consider to be Holy Scripture: Canon LXXXV (85) of those handed down in the name of the Holy and Renowned Apostles; Canon LX (60) of the regional Council held in Laodicea ca. 364; Canon XXXII (32) of the regional Council of Carthageheld during the years ca. 418-424; the “39th Festival Epistle” of St. Athanasios the Great (+ 373), Archbishop of Alexandria; the “heroic verses” of St. Gregory the Theologian (+ 389), Archbishop of Constantinople; and the Verses of St. Amphilochios (+ ca. 403), Archbishop of Iconium, that were addressed to Seleucus."

Behr's explanation is misleading. Medieval texts of the gospels are numerous; there are hundreds of surviving copies. Texts of the epistles are less common, but there are plenty of those as well. Of course laymen didn't generally have access to these, which was one of the issues driving the reformation in the first place. But with the advent of printing, that cat escaped the bag.

Behr's explanation is misleading. Medieval texts of the gospels are numerous; there are hundreds of surviving copies. Texts of the epistles are less common, but there are plenty of those as well.

Quote

Nobody had a complete book of the Holy Scriptures until after the invention of the printing press. The only places that held a more or less complete collection were the great libraries of the day.

That's exactly what Behr is stating (keeping in mind it's Second Chance's paraphrase not a direct quote). Copies of the Gospels were fairly common. The Psalter and the Epistles a little less so. But that's 3 *separate* books before we even address anything from the OT outside the Psalter, and this at a time where 3 books was a fairly substantial investment. Behr doesn't say the Scriptures weren't around--just that a 'complete book of the Scriptures', what we today think of when we go buy a 'Bible with Old and New Testament' was really only to be found in major libraries. Elsewhere, people had segments.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

The typical Protestant explanation is that earlier generations of Christians didn't "set" the canon of scripture, but simply managed to "recognize" what was inspired regardless of whether or not those Christians interpreted that scripture correctly or were being obedient to it, at least for the NT.

That's because that's what's true! Even the most liberal timeframes for NT authorship have everything being written by the early 200s; I believe a typical conservative dating knocks a century off that. Canon formation is not authorship; it's simply authorization, as it were.

Sorry, but I don't see the relation between what you said and what Melodist said.

:thoughtful:

My post wasn't so much about when anyting was written, but the general acceptance and recognition of those writings as being divinely inspired scripture.

What I was trying to say is that while Protestants (in general, not any specific group, I know some may agree with some of these points) will accept that the fathers were correct in their acceptance of the NT canon will also disagree with the techings and practices of those same fathers when it comes down to believing that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, baptizing infants, recognizing baptism as the new birth, the ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons, apostolic succession of bishops as understood by ALL churches predating the reformation, referring to the Theotokos as Theotokos, her ever-virginity, synergism between God's call and man's response, veneration of icons and relics or even having them at all, veneration of and prayers to Mary, the angels, and the saints, liturgical worship, prayers for the departed, the sign of the cross... I think I've given enough examples to make my point.

And this doesn't even touch the groups that I don't even consider to be "Christian" in the general sense of the term, like those that deny the Trinity, the resurrection of the body, those that either deny or diminish Christ's divinity or humanity, or those that teach the pre-existence of the human soul, or anything else that may be a denial of the most fundamental truths that are generally accepted by most Protestants concerning the nature of God, man, or the incarnation.

Behr's explanation is misleading. Medieval texts of the gospels are numerous; there are hundreds of surviving copies. Texts of the epistles are less common, but there are plenty of those as well.

Quote

Nobody had a complete book of the Holy Scriptures until after the invention of the printing press. The only places that held a more or less complete collection were the great libraries of the day.

That's exactly what Behr is stating (keeping in mind it's Second Chance's paraphrase not a direct quote). Copies of the Gospels were fairly common. The Psalter and the Epistles a little less so. But that's 3 *separate* books before we even address anything from the OT outside the Psalter, and this at a time where 3 books was a fairly substantial investment. Behr doesn't say the Scriptures weren't around--just that a 'complete book of the Scriptures', what we today think of when we go buy a 'Bible with Old and New Testament' was really only to be found in major libraries. Elsewhere, people had segments.

Here is a request. After my return from Sicily (whither I set off in a few hours) I must prepare a talk explaining why we believe that Baptist churches are real Christian churches. This involves explaining why we do not follow the Orthodox line about the true church. I should prefer to give your side of the debate accurately, and I fear that, as an outsider, I might unintentionally distort it. Now if we can't win a debate without misrepresenting our opponent's position, in reality we have lost, haven't we? So let me invite you to tell me what I should tell my hearers that you believe - why you are and we are not proper Christian churches. Please try to be succinct, and to do it in your own words, not by referring me to books, articles, websites &c. Thank you.

(Please note: as I shall be away, I shall not be replying for quite a while here or anywhere else, but I shall read what you write.)

« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 02:05:47 PM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Here is a request. After my return from Sicily (whither I set off in a few hours) I must prepare a talk explaining why we believe that Baptist churches are real Christian churches. This involves explaining why we do not follow the Orthodox line about the true church. I should prefer to give your side of the debate accurately, and I fear that, as an outsider, I might unintentionally distort it. Now if we can't win a debate without misrepresenting our opponent's position, in reality we have lost, haven't we? So let me invite you to tell me what I should tell my hearers that you believe - why you are and we are not proper Christian churches. Please try to be succinct, and to do it in your own words, not by referring me to books, articles, websites &c. Thank you.

(Please note: as I shall be away, I shall not be replying for quite a while here or anywhere else, but I shall read what you write.)

Upon your return will you agree to answer some of my questions that I've posted in the original post?

Let me think it over and I'll post my reason why I believe we are the orginial Christian Church founded in 33 A.D. (I'll try to have it by the end of the day)

Logged

"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom

Some, usually the older strings, will give you a history of the Church that will more or less agree with the RC or Orthodox history, but will also add in about hos the Church began turning away due to whatever influence (worldly power, heresy, etc.). Usually you'll see the turning point in the Reformation.

The American Evangelicals (especially the hyper-dispensationalists) will pretty much have a comparible history until about the beginning of the 2nd century. Then you see inserts about this-or-that apostacy being blamed on Polycarp, the Roman Church, Constantine, etc. Then you get all kinds of theories.

PP

But doesn't the whole Protestant argument about "sola scriptura" collapse when confronted with the fact that the Canon of Scripture was "closed" (more or less) around AD 397 (or thereabouts) and that that Canon was established by what is now (and was then, too) known as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (i.e. what are *now* the Catholic and Orthodox Churches)?

Yes, that's what my question is more about.

If things derailed so quickly before the cannon was set, what is the Protestant response to that given the circumstances? Also, who are the writers/theologians before the Reformation that argued things were going down-hill in regards to all these doctrines creeping in. Basically, I'm asking for a trace back before the Reformation to their side of the argument.

The Protestant argument, at least within the evangelical community, is as follows:

The early Christian writings are valuable, but should also be evaluated against Scripture. In fact, the strongest arguments the Church Fathers offered - the Trinity, Incarnation, holiness, etc - were all met with Scriptural backing in their own time. Other aspects, such as having Bishops, the sacraments, and the like, had less Scriptural backing.

Thus, certain doctrines are obviously accepted while others are more spurious, especially if those doctrines were debated at the time and made tradition later on. The Greek influence helped to slowly distort some elements of truth, but not the entire thing. The Latin Church, however, became so corrupted to the point a Reformation was needed.

As for sola scriptura, the canon is irrelevant. The Holy Spirit guided these people in choosing the canon, thus it is still God establishing Scripture and not man. Therefore, Scripture still reigns supreme.

An alternative argument is to say that church polity was meant to change and that not everything that worked in the early church is meant to work for now. Thus, the church, in some ways, is always evolving (but not in matters of core doctrine).

That is the very condensed version of the Protestant explanation. Personally, I find Mr. Young's partial explanation to be a bit more plausible (and being a former Southern Baptist, I have an idea of where he's going with it). Long before I began moving towards Orthodoxy I was well-studied in Church history...but from the Protestant perspective. What changed it was reading primary sources. Ironically, reading the primary sources was encouraged by the Baptist college I went to.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

As for sola scriptura, the canon is irrelevant. The Holy Spirit guided these people in choosing the canon, thus it is still God establishing Scripture and not man. Therefore, Scripture still reigns supreme.

So the Holy Spirit was active in church doctrine in this isolated event?

An alternative argument is to say that church polity was meant to change and that not everything that worked in the early church is meant to work for now. Thus, the church, in some ways, is always evolving (but not in matters of core doctrine).

I was raised in the Assembly of God denomination and while that period was a long time ago, I got the impression that they generally don't know much about that time frame. I still am friends and work with a great many of them and the earliest they generally know is the time of the Reformation. I'm sure some of the more educated of them do know a little, but it's not really important for their theology so they largely ignore it. Plus, it's my impression that they turn a deaf ear/blind eye to that time as they believe much of it is Roman Catholic. After all, they've invented the whole rapture idea, send missionaries to Christian Russia, etc...

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

I'm drafting up a reply now, David, to your request. Once I feel it is adequate I will see if it is worthy to post or not. I appreciate that you don't want to distort our position and I don't want to make an incoherent argument. As you request, I will not appeal to outside sources to validate my argument.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

The Protestant argument, at least within the evangelical community, is as follows:

The early Christian writings are valuable, but should also be evaluated against Scripture. In fact, the strongest arguments the Church Fathers offered - the Trinity, Incarnation, holiness, etc - were all met with Scriptural backing in their own time. Other aspects, such as having Bishops, the sacraments, and the like, had less Scriptural backing.

The Protestant argument, at least within the evangelical community, is as follows:

The early Christian writings are valuable, but should also be evaluated against Scripture. In fact, the strongest arguments the Church Fathers offered - the Trinity, Incarnation, holiness, etc - were all met with Scriptural backing in their own time. Other aspects, such as having Bishops, the sacraments, and the like, had less Scriptural backing.

Having bishops and sacraments isn't clearly in the Scriptures?

At least on the matter of bishops, I know that some Protestants make a rather good case that overseer and elder don't really denote two separate types of ministers within the New Testament Scriptures. Of course, it doesn't explain the current reality that all existing modern-day Christian groups with any sort of historical continuity which can be traced back to Pentecost either have bishops or broke away from a group which has bishops.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 11:04:05 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

The Protestant argument, at least within the evangelical community, is as follows:

The early Christian writings are valuable, but should also be evaluated against Scripture. In fact, the strongest arguments the Church Fathers offered - the Trinity, Incarnation, holiness, etc - were all met with Scriptural backing in their own time. Other aspects, such as having Bishops, the sacraments, and the like, had less Scriptural backing.

Having bishops and sacraments isn't clearly in the Scriptures?

At least on the matter of bishops, I know that some Protestants make a rather good case that overseer and elder don't really denote two separate types of ministers within the New Testament Scriptures. Of course, it doesn't explain the current reality that all existing modern-day Christian groups with any sort of historical continuity which can be traced back to Pentecost either have bishops or broke away from a group which has bishops.

Do they explain St. Polycarp or St. Ignatius too?

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

A couple of years ago I tossed into the garbage a church history book (don't remember title or author) that did look at St Ignatius only to point out that the Church had fallen into error with bishops, etc. in the very first generation after the Apostles.

A couple of years ago I tossed into the garbage a church history book (don't remember title or author) that did look at St Ignatius only to point out that the Church had fallen into error with bishops, etc. in the very first generation after the Apostles.

Wow!

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

A couple of years ago I tossed into the garbage a church history book (don't remember title or author) that did look at St Ignatius only to point out that the Church had fallen into error with bishops, etc. in the very first generation after the Apostles.

Wow!

that's one approach, another is to deny the authenticity of St. Ignatius writings wholesale (or even his existence), and say that all the other ECF's were proto-protestants adhering to a primitive form of sola scriptura by selectively quote mining them for any references they make towards scriptures.

The Protestant argument, at least within the evangelical community, is as follows:

The early Christian writings are valuable, but should also be evaluated against Scripture. In fact, the strongest arguments the Church Fathers offered - the Trinity, Incarnation, holiness, etc - were all met with Scriptural backing in their own time. Other aspects, such as having Bishops, the sacraments, and the like, had less Scriptural backing.

Having bishops and sacraments isn't clearly in the Scriptures?

At least on the matter of bishops, I know that some Protestants make a rather good case that overseer and elder don't really denote two separate types of ministers within the New Testament Scriptures. Of course, it doesn't explain the current reality that all existing modern-day Christian groups with any sort of historical continuity which can be traced back to Pentecost either have bishops or broke away from a group which has bishops.

You should show them the appointment of the first deacons in Acts. Clearly the New Testament church had both deacons and bishops.

The Protestant argument, at least within the evangelical community, is as follows:

The early Christian writings are valuable, but should also be evaluated against Scripture. In fact, the strongest arguments the Church Fathers offered - the Trinity, Incarnation, holiness, etc - were all met with Scriptural backing in their own time. Other aspects, such as having Bishops, the sacraments, and the like, had less Scriptural backing.

Having bishops and sacraments isn't clearly in the Scriptures?

At least on the matter of bishops, I know that some Protestants make a rather good case that overseer and elder don't really denote two separate types of ministers within the New Testament Scriptures. Of course, it doesn't explain the current reality that all existing modern-day Christian groups with any sort of historical continuity which can be traced back to Pentecost either have bishops or broke away from a group which has bishops.

You should show them the appointment of the first deacons in Acts. Clearly the New Testament church had both deacons and bishops.

Yes, they would agree. They just wouldn't agree that overseer and elder were two different offices. This is the case with LCMS, if I recall, where they have deacons and priests but no bishops.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Perhaps you could fill me in a little on the Orthodox understanding. My understanding has always been that for a while the early church had only bishops and deacons, whereas priests-who-were-not-bishops came a bit later.

Perhaps you could fill me in a little on the Orthodox understanding. My understanding has always been that for a while the early church had only bishops and deacons, whereas priests-who-were-not-bishops came a bit later.

This is my understanding as well. In this episode within the podcast "Speaking the Truth in Love", Fr Thomas Hopko IIRC, describes that originally there was one bishop/priest in a city. As the Christian population grew, there would remain one bishop in a city who would have deputies (priests as we know them today) to care for additional congregations.

(If it's not exactly that episode it's one nearby - I didn't take time to listen through it.)

Perhaps you could fill me in a little on the Orthodox understanding. My understanding has always been that for a while the early church had only bishops and deacons, whereas priests-who-were-not-bishops came a bit later.

...originally there was one bishop/priest in a city. As the Christian population grew, there would remain one bishop in a city who would have deputies (priests as we know them today) to care for additional congregations.

That's because in the beginning there would be only one Christian "congregation" in an area.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

Perhaps you could fill me in a little on the Orthodox understanding. My understanding has always been that for a while the early church had only bishops and deacons, whereas priests-who-were-not-bishops came a bit later.

This is my understanding as well. In this episode within the podcast "Speaking the Truth in Love", Fr Thomas Hopko IIRC, describes that originally there was one bishop/priest in a city. As the Christian population grew, there would remain one bishop in a city who would have deputies (priests as we know them today) to care for additional congregations.

As for sola scriptura, the canon is irrelevant. The Holy Spirit guided these people in choosing the canon, thus it is still God establishing Scripture and not man. Therefore, Scripture still reigns supreme.

So the Holy Spirit was active in church doctrine in this isolated event?

An alternative argument is to say that church polity was meant to change and that not everything that worked in the early church is meant to work for now. Thus, the church, in some ways, is always evolving (but not in matters of core doctrine).

Of which "core doctrine" is itself debatable without a baseline.

Not in this isolated event. The argument is that the Holy Spirit was active in all major church decisions. Many evangelicals still hold the councils in high regard, though the later the council, the less regard it holds. Not all evangelicals are anti-tradition, but rather value tradition when compared to Scripture. Thus, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the like are accepted as core facts. Others, such as crossing ourselves, the literal blood and body of Christ, issues around Mary, aren't viewed as Scriptural and are therefore viewed as false or unnecessary.

As for "core doctrine" being debatable, I agree with you. I think the modern "emergent movement" or "postmodern Christianity" simply takes Protestantism to its logical end where everything is questioned. However, some evangelicals would put forth a good argument that some aspects must be accepted, even if they are debated.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

The Protestant argument, at least within the evangelical community, is as follows:

The early Christian writings are valuable, but should also be evaluated against Scripture. In fact, the strongest arguments the Church Fathers offered - the Trinity, Incarnation, holiness, etc - were all met with Scriptural backing in their own time. Other aspects, such as having Bishops, the sacraments, and the like, had less Scriptural backing.

Having bishops and sacraments isn't clearly in the Scriptures?

At least on the matter of bishops, I know that some Protestants make a rather good case that overseer and elder don't really denote two separate types of ministers within the New Testament Scriptures. Of course, it doesn't explain the current reality that all existing modern-day Christian groups with any sort of historical continuity which can be traced back to Pentecost either have bishops or broke away from a group which has bishops.

You should show them the appointment of the first deacons in Acts. Clearly the New Testament church had both deacons and bishops.

There would be one of two responses. They'd either offer the exegetical response that Cavar is talking about, or they'd say, "That worked for then, but not now; polity isn't meant to be a 'one-size-fits-all' kind of thing."

Of course the irony is how many modern churches are beginning to function. A megachurch will develop "satellite" churches around the city, where the pastor of the "mother church" serves as the head pastor for all of the small churches, but each small church has their own pastor and functions as an independent church. They simply use collective funds.

In some ways, it's very similar to having a Bishop (senior pastor) who appoints the pastors to the small churches; the collective congregations choose the senior pastor, but the senior pastor chooses the local pastors. This structure has led to a debate in many Baptist circles over whether or not this violates their idea of an autonomous church; it's quite entertaining for me to watch.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2012, 04:21:17 PM by theo philosopher »

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus